$100M for musicians in royalty fees?
A federal court on Wednesday established a formula for determining the Internet royalties owed to thousands of music composers, writers and publishers by three major online services — Yahoo Inc., AOL and RealNetworks Inc. The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers hailed the decision, estimating the guidelines could yield as much as $100 million in payments covering a seven-year period ending in 2009. The trade group, known as ASCAP, had contended that its 320,000 members weren’t being properly compensated for musical works that helped drive traffic and increase revenue for Yahoo, Time Warner Inc.’s AOL and RealNetworks.
U.S. District Judge William Conner’s 153-page decision didn’t specify the total amount owed to the ASCAP members, but he provided an example on how the formula would apply to the music royalties owed by AOL and Yahoo for 2006. Under the formula endorsed by Conner, AOL owed 2006 fees of $5.95 million and Yahoo owed $6.76 million. That’s far more than AOL and Yahoo envisioned. New York-based AOL had proposed paying just $632,879 in 2006 royalties while Sunnyvale-based Yahoo had proposed paying $889,402 in 2006 licensing fees, according to court documents. The new formula will also be used to determine the online royalties owed by all three companies 2007 through 2009.
Source: AP
wt a waste of money..! they should rather give it 2 ppl who actually need the money
i hope all these money eaters can burn in hell, 4 being so greedy
offtopic - Robb Douglas, the guy behind www.robbscelebs.co.uk is dead, every male on the planet must have been on that site, its a big loss, it helped a lot of guys including me through their teenage years lol
Aw. man that sucks
God bless his soul if possible….
hahaha their name is ASSCAP
I find quite entertaining watching these corporate sharks trying to eat each other…
horton hears a who dvdrip
Listen here.
If Yahoo, RealNetworks, and AOL used an artists work or just their name on their EXTREMELY popular sites, then they are helping promote that artist, NOT the other way around.
nuff said.
-no more comments needed
They dont be needin no money. They need to be tossin on some mean-ass salad. You done heard me - i just told them to go toss on my salad, homeboys. Hell, i’ll even throw in some of that special extra mayo with it.
These artists, they can all just toss my salad. I aint playin withcha here, im tellin these homeboys to toss my salad. Them artists better just shut they yappin moufs and start tossin on some mean salad. Also, those nut-gobblers can gobble on my nuts.
Soon these artists will be gobblin on so much nuts - what they think they are, squirrels????
I will make them toss so much salad they think they might as well be workin at a vegetarian restaurant.
^^^^ That has to be the most queer rant I ever heard on the internet.
There should be a ban on music until the music industry, or more specifically, these mafia organizations, are out of business. They serve no purpose beyond lame lawsuits, and find me an artist or writer who these groups have actually given substantial payments to.
#9 Guess what? You got a big mouf there mister. Maybe i need to block your mouf with some salad? Toss on my salad and gobble on them nuts homeboy. You like that extra mayo wit that salad there, homeboy?
dont diss the salad man homeboy
we aren’t talking about some guy downloading a song for personal use here, these are big corporations stealing from musicians and making millions at it, make them pay what they deserve.
First of all, all the corporations involved in the suit make money from sales of music online.This is not directed at the many who find alternative ways to download music.
Secondly, how many of us would be o.k. with either working for free or having someone use our creations without compensation. I’m not against p2p and other ways of sharing music, but the artist does not owe us his work for free. I don’t ask my dentist, the pizza-man or the gas station to give me free service.
I just think that in a sense of fairness, in a very competitive and increasingly expensive world, people deserve compensation for their work.
Remember also, that not all artists are swimming in the vast green sea of money. In fact, most artists, actors et al (more than 90%) do not earn minimum wage salaries.
It is important that we all support each other to be fairly compensated when we can. It is the way each of us would like to be treated…
You done made me grin Tossed Salad Man
You should get some royalties too..Salad Man…lol
Effing salad man, what a twat.. Go find yourself a cliff and ‘toss yourself off that..
Nothing is free. The point is how to calculate the fair price, that’s the big problem and they didn’t solve it…
[14:16] [ XVID ] - [ Iron.Man.TS.XViD.MP3.SCREENER.2008.ES-iLGS ]
Anyone have links to this?
I wonder just how much EXACTLY the artists will get, bet the lions share will go to the record label,and the artist will get SQUAT……
@7
no more comments needed by you.
Music is art, art is only worth what people will pay for it.
They should be owed nothing.
The irony of all this is hilarious!!!
Yup - for years they have been trying to sue the average person loads of cash for sharing music and downloading - making a example of someone and taking them to court.
The artists never get the money that sharers are sued for the so called illeagal downloads, they get a small fraction from the sales - while we are make to feel like thieves - these big companies have been ripping the artists off for millions - for years.
Hope this moves the embaressing “frightening” ads for downloading music and films into perspective -
Downloading funds terrorists you know!
So im not allowed to rip a cd or dvd I bought for my own use or for my mp3 player and this is going on. ?…..Brilliant..
If someone if making lots of money for illigally selling elses product on a website or in advertising the creators should get a cut that is fair.
I download stuff for my own use - I dont then rip to dvd or cd and sell it - thats out of order..
These guys are the pirates
Someone at these places is going to be visiting the all you can eat salad bar for sure….
I see MS buying yahoo + aol
@13 wolfgang
“Secondly, how many of us would be o.k. with either working for free or having someone use our creations without compensation.”
-should the same be applied to webpage creators? so that they get paid for every person who looks at their “creation”?
They get paid for the work they did when writing the code. Why should music be any different? Raking in millions even after the friggin artist is dead. Getting paid for what you did 13 years ago in a 25 minute jamsession is NOT getting paid for working… Geting paid for playing a heavy ass concert is..
@24 spuffy
Your premise that artists musicians get paid for their recording out front is wrong. Most musicians earn their money from the royalties paid - not from out front money.
Secondly, a large percentage of music downloaded is not created by people who can avail themselves to stage performance and thus don’t get the opportunity to play those “heavy ass concerts” you refer to.
As to the theory that music is created in a haphazard “25 minute jam session”, that is ridiculous. Just as in webpage creations, it takes many hours of hard work to create, put together and record the music you are enjoying
Spuffy, again, most artists are not “millionaires”, aren’t raking in goo-gobs of money (in fact as I stated earlier over 95% don’t even make a living wage) and truly depend on being paid.
I don’t understand your anger towards what you refer to as “friggin artists.”
Why is it that people are so willing to take advantage of others work. No one is trying to rip you off.
If you choose to share music p2p that’s o.k. and is your choice. But, please don’t deny compensation from due from downloads off of Yahoo Inc., AOL and RealNetworks Inc.
this entire comment bored is full of fail.
@25 wolfgang
I should have been more clear on what I was saying.
“Your premise that artists musicians get paid for their recording out front is wrong.”
This is a missunderstanding. What I said was that, “they get paid for the work they did when writing the code”
“they” should be read as webpage coders not musicians.
“why should music be any different” this simply means I think the musicians SHOULD get paid when recording. Just like any other working person. If they want to be paid after the fact, then THEY should print/publish, distribute and sell it. But then, that would be working…
My anger was not aginst the “friggin artists” my anger was that the work of a musician STILL makes profit for some nondescript organization that holds the rights to it even after the artist is “friggin dead”.
just as a sidenote, I work in the graphics industry, 3d/2d mainly, this does not change the fact that I get paid for when I work, not what I did last year…
I do understand the time it takes to produce something(even though i know of some ,by personal preference, good music that has been produced in a 25 minute jamsession…). Its just that in my personal opinion I think that recorded music is more of advertising for the true product, the artist, at a live performance.
All this is just my way of thinking, considering thats the way I view my own work. Which is done for “by the hour” pay, and I use it further as advertisement for myself by myself.
It might in that way help me to get another job, some extra work or lead to some other interesting thing. I dont expect to be paid everytime someone happens to see my work online or prints it on a t-shirt. I dont expect it no matter in what form… But then that just me, and maybe thats why Im not a millionare…
/end rant
A small edit…
“STILL makes profit for some nondescript organization that holds the rights to it even after the artist is “friggin dead”.” add “without printing, publishing or distributing it” to the end of -STILL makes a profit -.-
the frackin RIAA and other middle mafia takes 99% and the musicians themselfs get the 1% of it